Jason suggested doing a post on the different perspectives in reading education, which immediately made me think about P. David Pearson. Last semester, I read an article that he coauthored with Alan Schoenfeld, "The Reading and Math Wars" (and highlighted basically the entire thing), but I suspected that he had an article only on reading that would be better for this purpose (which he does). I also went to go hear his distinguished lecture at AERA, "The History of Reading Comprehension." Plus, he was the discussant at one of David Gamson and David Baker's sessions, and he asked to borrow my program to look something up (!!). Clearly, we are like bffs. So I will use his "The Readings Wars" article and the crumpled, handwritten notes I took on a Sheraton notepad during his lecture to write this post. :o)
First of all, you guys should all read this article. It is AWESOME - in its breadth, depth, and insight. I think that you have probably heard of the whole language vs. phonics debate in reading?? I actually have vague memories of hearing about this debate even as a middle school student. Perhaps the most important thing to know about these terms is that they represent huge and enduring debates in education, much bigger than literacy instruction alone. From the terms themselves, you might think ok, these are two approaches to teaching reading: Phonics focuses on teaching kids letter sounds and how to put them together (breaking words down); whole language focuses on teaching students how to recognize entire words. No. That might be a rough definition, but it is not what they mean.
Whole language, for example, is a term that has come to represent many progressive teaching techniques. Pearson calls it the “reading field’s foray into constructivist pedagogy,” but also associates it with other progressive approaches, like "process writing, literature-based reading, and integrated curriculum," which Pearson describes as whole language's "intellectual cousins" (220). The “guiding principles” of whole language are “authenticity (in texts, tasks, and tests) and curricular integration (across reading, writing, speaking, and listening) and between the language arts and other curricular areas” (216). The “whole language” approach to reading instruction stemmed from changes in ideas about how people learn. Advances in technology allowed researchers to better understand the inner workings of the brain, the “cognitive revolution” in psychology. In addition, there was a growing emphasis on sociocultural theories of learning, which emphasized how meaning comes from an individual transacting with their environment and with other people. (Think about the reader-response activities we did in class, and how we also shared those personal transactions with the text with each other.)
In contrast, phonics (more than just knowing letter sounds) represents a decontextualized approach to reading, in which it is assumed that if students understand and practice the pure mechanics of the reading process, they will be able to read well. The emphasis is on the mechanical skills of reading – understanding letter sounds and how they blend together, repeated testing of students’ reading speed (the technical terms are decoding and fluency). As you might imagine, a systematic approach to decoding letter sounds lends itself much easily to worksheets, scripted curricula, and other deprofessionalizing modes of teaching. Whole language sees the “language arts” as a set of connected modes of thinking; phonics sees reading and writing as two separate phenomena.
Pearson speculated in 1989 that he did not see whole language as having much traction in the policy community, not because he didn’t think it was a good idea, but because its tenets did not square with a policy maker’s worldview. Whole language is based on interpretive theories of knowledge – that external reality doesn’t exist outside of our own experience of it. It also emphasizes the professionalism and autonomy of the individual teacher, which makes it almost impossible to “scale up.” Pearson did not think that such complex answers would have a place with policy-makers who want simple solutions. Pearson did see whole language as having a large effect on publishing companies, however, significantly changing the structure of basal readers and leading to more thematically linked book sets. In spite of these changes, the phonics movement has been ascendant since about the mid-1990s. One reason for this is policy changes at the federal level that value quantitative, experimental research in education across the board. (Much research supporting whole language was qualitative.) When applied to reading, this research has used very capital-S “Scientific” methods to demonstrate the importance of phonemic awareness and actual instruction in phonics (225). Whole language research was largely shut out of the conversation because it did not fit the government’s guidelines of rigorous scientific research (228).
Pearson points out important caveats made in even the most pro-phonics federal reading reports, though, that allow for a balanced approach. Pearson himself advocates for a combination of both approaches, and I trust his assessment. His work may provide an answer to those reading specialists who feel confused by their coursework coming from two divergent perspectives. Perhaps his confidence that effective teachers do both will help to assuage their cognitive dissonance.
**I wrote a pretty good amount about this article, but probably still didn’t do it justice. Like I said, I definitely recommend reading this one in its entirety!
Pearson, P. D. (2004). “The Reading Wars.” Educational Policy. Vol. 18, Issue 216. p. 216-252.
No comments:
Post a Comment